BF2S Forums E4300 & E6300

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

I heard E4300 overclocks better. High multiplier ftw.

FSB OCs > multiplier OCs.

The Allendales (E4300 is an Allendale, E6300 is a Conroe) have lower FSBs than their Conroe equivalents.

Have they been released yet?

Bertster7 wrote:

cyborg_ninja-117 wrote:

I heard E4300 overclocks better. High multiplier ftw.

FSB OCs > multiplier OCs.

The Allendales (E4300 is an Allendale, E6300 is a Conroe) have lower FSBs than their Conroe equivalents.

Have they been released yet?

Yeah, the E6300 overclocks better. But it's also an Allendale and one of the main points in buying an Allendale is, that the Allendale generally overclocks better (We've seen a more than 100% performance increase on E6300 and almost 100% on the E6400 - while the Conroe cores actually FSB-overclock worse but got a higher multiplier overall anyway...).

So the E4300 with it's FSB of 200MHz instead of 266MHz is generally slower than the E6300 unless you got a mobo that supports overclocking very well. E4300s have been reported to overclock well up to 3,4GHz with air cooling.

So, here's what you should do:

If your mobo supports the E6300, go for it.

If your mobo, however does NOT support the E6300 go for the E4300, which is the main purpose of it - that people with older mainboards can actually run Core2Duo now.

Last edited by Stormscythe (2007-01-16 11:46:26)

Fraud, many people then got what they didn't pay for! ^^

Bertster7 wrote:

Stormscythe wrote:

Fraud, many people then got what they didn't pay for! ^^

What do you mean?

Intel have never claimed the E6300 or E6400 are Allendale based CPUs. A number of reviewers have, incorrectly, identified them as Allendales. This mistake has now been rectified by the majority of major review sites and has been confirmed as a mistake in a press release by Intel.

In fact all Core 2 Duos out at the moment are Conroes, apart from the Q6600 and the QX6700, which are Kentsfields.

The problem, I think is that some Intel member threw in the names Conroe and Allendale when they defeated AMD in that specific benchmark series (publically)... Meh, was it July or August of 2006.
What I really can't quite get is why so many many shops that should actually have bought their CPUs from bigger resellers, who themselves should have received their stuff from Intel, used a wrong specification. Strange there had to be another 'soon-to-be' Allendale to reveal this mistake. And strange that Intel didn't care about it that much - I mean, with Conroe having been the flagship for quite some time, they might have even welcomed their mainstream processor being called something 'unworthy' (namely Allendale) so that their 'Conroes' sold better... Of course this method would only apply to posers who have no clue about CPUs and buy them because of their core name...

younggun wrote:

The E4300 is the better OCer.

For stock speeds you would be better with the E6300.

Really?

Surely the lower FSB and higher multiplier means that less work gets done per clock and I can't see the E4300 getting past about the 3.5GHz mark very comfortably, which the E6300 does ok on air. It'd have to be running at a significantly higher clock to get the same CPU throughput as the E6300.

I haven't really looked into it, but I'd be pleasantly suprised if that were true.

*edit* I've had a little look and it seems easier to overclock (puts less strain on the MB), but doesn't produce as good results clock for clock, or overall. I haven't seen any reviewers get up to a speed comparable to what I run my E6300 at with an E4300, but the higher multiplier makes higher clocks attainable for people who haven't splashed out on quality MBs. It's cheaper too.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-01-16 16:07:53)

younggun wrote:

Well look at it this way... by late 07 it will be ~$133 (Dailytech reported) and its definitely possible for a 100% OC. (stock = 1.8, can do 3.6) So for $133 you are getting 3.6ghz and performance to that of a $900 X6800 on stock speeds.

You tell me which is better...

I beat X6800 speeds on my E6300. I've looked at some overclocks people have managed on E4300s, they're not as good as those on an E6300, due to the lower FSB.

It (the E4300) is a much better budget buy. $133, by Q2 of '07, is a bargain. Add to that the fact that due to the higher multiplier you don't need a premium MB for high overclocking performance and you've got a lovely little budget CPU. If you can afford to, go Conroe though, they're better.

The E6300 is better though. Just not such amazing value.

[69th_GFH]GC_PaNzerFIN wrote:

suck my ballz, I get E6400 or E6600

We're talking about pure OCing abilities...

So no, I will not suck your balls.

'6300 and '6400 are both Allendale..